26 comments:

Mariano,I'm not sure if you realize this, but this whole story does absolutely nothing to debunk evolution--not even a chink in the armor. So scientists 100 years ago were wrong. Okay, fine. Congratulations, Captain Obvious. As if that's never happened before.

I am exceedingly curious as to how you reckon with the overwhelming evidence in favor evolution. Do you just ignore it, true "skeptic" that you are? Or are you simply too fascinated with the personal failings of Darwinist and evolutionist scientists to notice?

First, you misunderstand evolution. Even though we evolved from bacteria, there are still bacteria around. Alligators have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. When a gene pool separates and one group evolves in response to new environmental pressures, that doesn't mean that the old niche necessarily disappears.

Second, if you think that our evidence for fish to tetrapod evolution is based on a single debunked fossil, allow me to get you caught up to our present scientific understanding:

"Coelacanth" is a generic descriptor applied at the Order or Family taxonomic level. To say that Latimeria (Genus, not even species) hasn't changed in umpteen million years is like pointing to African and Indian elephants and concluding mastodons haven't evolved either.

And, not that you care, evolution simply says that species can and sometimes do change visibly over time. It does not say that they must. This is a problem with your ignorance about the theory of evolution, not a problem for the theory.

Your claims are just plain ridiculous and won't work on anyone unless they're stupid, blind or ignorant.

There is nothing ad hoc about it. Our ancestors were bacteria, fish, reptiles, then mammals and yet all of these things still exist today. If you think that this is incompatible with evolution, then you don't understand evolution. Reptiles didn't have to all die out so that their cousins, the early mammals, could live on. Coelacanths didn't all have to die out for their cousins to become tetrapods. If you claim that the theory of evolution would require their niche to disappear and for them to die out, please explain how you came to this conclusion.

Mariano's science essays share a common theme. Point out instances when certain evidence compatible with evolution was meant to make a strong claim that is later shown to be invalid. This was the theme of Mariano's essay on Ardi. The logical leap then is to say that somehow by showing that the strong claim is unsupported, the theory of evolution is destroyed.

To help you understand why this is a fallacy, allow me to give you a completely parallel analogy. Theory: Jesus was a real historical figure. Overzealous evidence: Shroud of Turin. Outcome: Evidence debunked. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus was not a real historical figure.

Hahah this is what I caught bossmanham out on AJ's blog wasn't it? The article is built on the ignorance the Coelacanth is not a species a fish. It's an Order of Fish. And the 2 Species of this Order of Fish are different to what's found in the fossil record.

For example the Order Canivora is the link between Cats & Dogs. So that's the sort of taxonomic size we're talking about.

So basically this is an example of something that has changed over Family, Class, Genus & Species. So a fine example of "Macro"-Evolution.

Nobody is saying your statement is untrue! Why so paranoid? I would never argue with anyone who says "Evolution is infallible" except to say that you're a bit too zealous and overstate the case a little bit.

Well, it's now been over a week since my comment above. Therefore I feel justified in saying that Anonymous has disappeared without answering my very simple question. But then again, maybe it's just because I have no life outside the blogosphere.

"You are really as stupid as Mariano. He is a complete fool when it comes to science. I will answer your question - you are an asshole! Get a life outside this blog."

MaskedMarauder...

"You truly are an idiot just like is stated above by secularist10."

O.M.G!!!

The sad thing is that you guys are seriously enraged. I'm truly embarassed for you. Secularist, your repeated returning to this thread in an attempt to pick an internet fight is pathetic and indicative of a lack of a life outside of the blogosphere. Unfortunately, that's where the evidence leads.

MaskedMarauder, right back at you.

It's evident that I've somehow seriously challenged the sacredness of both of your belief systems. How else to explain the outrage?

As for this thread, it's unlikely I'll participate further, but I might. So, Secularist, please keep returning to show us what an exciting life you lead away from this blog, just in case.

Those are spoofs. The faux MM has no "avatar," and the link goes to a different destination. The same is so for the fake secularist10. The spoofer is using a leading blank space on the name so its different, but doesn't look different...

I expect your lack of attention to detail and indifference to analysis explains a lot about how you came to be a christian. Intellectual sloth is a big part of credulity.

And what about answering the question, Anonymous? I notice you accuse me of coming back to this thread, and yet... you keep coming back to this thread. Still without answering my question, I might add.

Anon: exactly my point, you're more interested in slinging insults than you are in who you sling them at or why. Its all theatre for you. Not everyone is so shallow.

The correction was for the benefit of anyone who happens to read this. It was not intended for you. I'm not foolish enough to suppose that somebody without a personality actually cares about anyone who does.